Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:87028
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.54 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL+t6cGgE-5hT-bs7gN-cJ4Eoood7keK7FHDwHaE_=J_3RC+Ag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+kxMuRg1PvRAVnxZsZd2uFeTHfBoWzKvOqFMqFfGq2SVZUkJg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL+t6cGgE-5hT-bs7gN-cJ4Eoood7keK7FHDwHaE_=J_3RC+Ag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 19:02:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CAH-PCH5ObfF57RihMQRtrt3HL9uUSGxaFapK8i6KGmfMHgTNwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sherif Ramadan <theanomaly.is@gmail.com>
Cc: Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>, =?UTF-8?B?SmFrdWIgS3Viw63EjWVr?= <kelerest123@gmail.com>, 
	Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>, Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, 
	PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, 
	Aaron Piotrowski <aaron@icicle.io>, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133b44e5aa413051a23bf14
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Revert unapproved language change, was: Fix
 division by zero to throw exception (round 2)
From: tyra3l@gmail.com (Ferenc Kovacs)

--001a1133b44e5aa413051a23bf14
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Sherif Ramadan <theanomaly.is@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 4 July 2015 at 20:56, Sherif Ramadan <theanomaly.is@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> > >
> > > I'm proposing that we reconsider removing the warning from floating
> point
> > > division and here's why.
> >
> > Wait ....what? I don't remember an RFC about the behaviour changing.
> > Did someone ninja commit a change to the language?
> >
> > Well it sure looks like it:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/php/php-src/commit/f9724b93f6592d2f77fa9165038a0ba0db3=
da0c6
> >
> > This is absolutely a change that needs an RFC. As the change was done
> > without one, please can it be reverted until an RFC is done?
> >
>
> I actually fully agree to the IEEE 754 compliance part and I doubt anyone
> will disagree on that part as it only stands to benefit everyone. However=
,
> I completely disagree with removing the warning blind-sidedly and
> especially two days before the beta1 release like that. I do opt that it =
be
> reverted, however, until the matter is fully resolved. If that happens to
> take a day or a month it shouldn't result in releasing ad hoc changes tha=
t
> will be wish-washy between releases like that should something change. At
> the very least let's cherry pick it out of the beta 1 release to ensure
> we've fully resolved the matter.
>
>
hi,

my 2 cents:
the IEEE 754 related changes had enough discussion and while it would have
been nice handling it under an rfc earlier instead of pushing it late
calling it a bugfix I think we should keep it.
however I see little point in removing the warning at this point, I can
understand how from a purist point of view it makes little sense, but we
have this warning forever and as people already pointed out at the very
least can help with debugging bugs in your code.
so I would keep the warning for 7.0 (as removing it after beta1 would be
even worse than pushing the change 2 days before tagging beta1).

--=20
Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

--001a1133b44e5aa413051a23bf14--